In 2005 when President Bush nominated the White House counsel Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court the choice was widely ridiculed, particularly by conservatives. She lacked the experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. Now Presidential Obama has made the same mistake with Elena Kagen. The only problem is that it’s very likely that Kagen’s nomination will be approved with nary a peep raised by so-called progressives. There are simply too many distractions for the American people to pay attention and Kagen has the ideological approval of the mainstream press.
Yuval Levin has one example why Kagen should never be allowed on the court. Kagen basically distorted the scientific findings of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to suit the White House.
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
This would be a scandal if a Bush appointee did something like this, but I doubt this even makes the news. What happened to the left’s supposed respect of science? President Obama has made that sickening remark a few times himself. I guess liberals only respect science distorted to fit a particular ideological outcome. Want to kill babies? Why not just make something up? Want to tax Americans back to the stone age? Hide the decline!
Does anyone really think Americans know anything about the Commerce Clause? That’s the double standard we’re living under. It’s the same reason why the Washington Post has an entire blog dedicated to conservatives and not to liberals.
Even if Obama withdrew the nomination it’s not likely he would pick someone better. Only Republican Presidents make the mistake of picking the wrong people and then actually withdraw the nomination. It’s never the other way around.
Your argument is a bit confusing for two reasons. First, you claim that Kagen distoted scientfic facts right? Well, did you know that the same statement (ACOG’s first report) that you claim to be completely scientific really stated, “it could identify no particular circumstances where the partial-birth method might be the only method to save the health or life of the mother, but that the committee thought it important to leave that judgment to the individual doctors.” This was before Kagen changed anything. So even though the task force could not find a medical situation that calls for partial abortion, they made a point to say that doctors should be allowed the option to make that call.
See what I am getting at? You argue the ACOG’s initial report was based on science. Kagen was malicious by revising science to fit her own ideals. However, the initial report did not rule out the CHOICE of performing partial birth abortions. So science limits the credibility of partial abortions in known medical cases, but it should remain an option. I agree with science supporting the doctor’s right to choose. However, I am interested to hear whether you still view OCOG’s initial report and views as scientific. If not, then Kagen did not distort true scientific facts and your argument is flawed. However, if you still view it as science then you have to conceed that science supports the option of “killing babies” in some situations that are deemed appropriate by individual doctors.
Secondly, liberals never claim to use science as their platform. If anything, that is you and Club Soda’s claim to fame. You always make the comment that liberals use feelings while conservatives rely on logic and reason. So I don’t know why you make the assumption that liberals believe they use science more than others. If anything, Kagen’s actions align with pro-choice views underlying many liberal platforms. Repubs disagreed with Bush on many things because Bush wasn’t a true conservative (you made this comment several times). Pro-choice is a cornerstone of the dem party just as pro-life is of the repubs. To me, Kagen’s actions align with the ideals of her party more so than not.
We all distort science so it is stupid to argue about this anyways. If any liberal suggests their views are more scientifically valid than conservatives please send them my way. That is just stupid.
Deb, I’m not sure where to begin. Kagen said herself that the report as it was written was “a disaster.” She basically used her own language (hide the decline) and misrepresented the report. I guess you’re comfortable with having Supreme Court justices who will do anything to “advance the cause.”
As far as “liberals never claim to use science as their platform” is concerned you couldn’t be further from the truth. This list is endless…. global warming and stem cell research are the two easiest examples. The New York Times (the liberal paper of record) wrote that Obama was ushering in a “new respect” for science. President Obama said in his inaugural address that he’d “restore science to its rightful place” as if we’d been living in caveman times. It’s insulting, and I guess you just missed it.
Whether or not Kagan distorted the scientific findings to further a political end, which she did, just the fact that one would so vociferously defend this barbaric “procedure” — which is essentially sucking the brains out of a living being for having the audacity to live — is disgusting. Still, based on her history beyond the partial-birth abortion scandal, it is quite obvious that she will not interpret the Constitution, but will bend it to fit a preconceived ideology. Ultimately, that is what makes her unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice. She may be fit to be a partisan hack for one Democratic administration or other, but that’s about it.